You know, I really don't care either way really. I liked the story either way.
I just hope in #3 they leave Old Spock and all that behind. As much as I love Nimoy, it's time to let that go.
J.J. Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness
- Thread starter Batty
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
You know, I really don't care either way really. I liked the story either way.
I just hope in #3 they leave Old Spock and all that behind. As much as I love Nimoy, it's time to let that go.
Mad Old Lu
Super Freak
It doesn't bother me too much, TBH. Since it does feel so tacked on, it's easier for me to ignore. 
But really, it's a great movie if you ignore the Kahn thing and Kirk in the warp core.
But really, it's a great movie if you ignore the Kahn thing and Kirk in the warp core.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 35,160
- Reaction score
- 2
It ruined the movie for me. I still like it...but I don't know. Really disappointing they had to go there. Now it makes sense why the film was so convoluted and messy.
Khan was pointless......he did not act, sound, look like Khan, so what was the point?
I don't know why it would. If you liked the movie other than that, I don't see how him having a different name would've made a difference.
I think they set this character up to return.
Deckard
Super Freak
Yea set him up to return. Good thing they brought back the director and writers who set that up and know how.... oh.
It was cheap and dumb. They are pretty much admitting what I already knew, this dumb twist happened after they couldn't cast Benicio in the role. It's a crap remake. Not it's own thing.
It was cheap and dumb. They are pretty much admitting what I already knew, this dumb twist happened after they couldn't cast Benicio in the role. It's a crap remake. Not it's own thing.
Niltusk
Super Freak
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2011
- Messages
- 12,599
- Reaction score
- 50
If they figured out a way to include him that didn't seem like last minute shoehorning each movie it may have worked better, but it just seems like a shoddy way to include him each time.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 35,160
- Reaction score
- 2
It would've taken away from such a useless character. Change his name, he isn't Khan, and therefore original. Making him Khan just felt lazy.
Also, the ending scene was just terrible. It was a rehash. Nothing is worse then a rehash.
shockwave
Super Freak
That wasn't Khan in STID.
Just a follower. If it was Khan he had a facelift.
I would have been convinced if he said a few times..........AD-MIR-AL!
Just a follower. If it was Khan he had a facelift.
I would have been convinced if he said a few times..........AD-MIR-AL!
That was the problem. If he doesn't look, sound or act anything at all like Montalban's Khan there really wasn't any point at all in calling him Khan. Yeah they were never going to find a Montalban clone but there needed to be some connect at least...and there wasn't any. Might aswell have been anyone.
Well they tried to get members of the bridge crew that all looked and sounded somewhat like the original counterparts, so the creative team obviously thought it was important for those guys. But for Khan they decided it wasn't important. So there is some inconsistency there. There is really nothing about his look or demeanor to suggest that he's Khan.
Zen Mutiny
Super Freak
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2013
- Messages
- 649
- Reaction score
- 0
But casting a white guy as Khan was the only way they could lend credibility to their lie that he wouldn't be in the movie....
I'm not too fussed about it. You see it all the time in movies. They'll put a black guy playing a character that was white in a previous version (ie; Karate Kid), or even a female instead of a male (ie; Evil Dead remake).
shockwave
Super Freak
2003 Galatica remake...Starbuck
Yeah but Khan.....
Yeah but Khan.....
2003 Galatica remake...Starbuck
Yeah but Khan.....
Why not ? I know a guy with the last name of Wong and is as white as I am
That was different because the Galactica connection was so loose and free. 2003 Galactica happened in an extremely different universe than the '70s one. The new Star Trek films are supposed to contain precisely the same characters as the old show/movies, different only in the timeline change and whatever resulted because of it.2003 Galatica remake...Starbuck
Yeah but Khan.....
The Khan thing really didn't bother me so much, but I think it would have made more sense to at least give whatshisface some of Montelban's mannerisms/look. That would better fit with the logic of how this new series is supposed to be moving forward. Klingons also looked quite different.
And I hated that Starbuck. Though the guys liked her because they thought she was hot. I thought she was a joke. Cigar and all.2003 Galatica remake...Starbuck
Yeah but Khan.....
Similar threads
